Originally Posted by malcr001
+1 What Devonboy said. UK FPvers still go for 100mw UHF systems because
A: It's 10 times more powerful than a standard 10mw rc 2.4ghz tx not to mention will give you better pentration because of the lower frequency
B: The 2.4ghz frequency is bloated as it is, avoiding this frequency at all costs especially if your flying in a urban/sub-urban area is a good decision.
100mw UHF will still give you a good distance and dont forget its not about the output power of your tx its about your recievers on the other end.
Regarding your point (A) above, surely a decent 2.4GHz control system will give you range in excess of the spotters unaided visual range?! You should easily be good for 1000m on a Futaba system. Regarding point (B), I've never had a problem with the integrity of my 2.4Ghz control system, in spite of the local traffic on that band. I guess it's because it's frequency hopping system, which is fairly robust, right? And I don't know anybody who uses UHF for conventional non-FPV aircraft because it is more robust that 2.4G.
So for me, I still don't see why you would want to use UHF unless you are planning to fly further than you can on a 2.4G system. It's a shame we're not permitted to do so, because to me, that is the exciting possibility of this technology. I can see why we have these laws, but I feel it's really a case of being sensible and managing the risk you are taking. For example, what about if you go to the middle of Dartmoor and fly beyond visual range there? Is that still illegal?
And another thing, I reckon the 'visual range of a spotter' thing was a concession on article 166 of the Air Navigation Order. However, if you put a GoPro camera on the front of your plane in addition to a piloting one, does that not make it a 'Small Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft', which is then subject to article 167 of the ANO, and is not subject to such restrictions?
Sorry for all the questions. I don't intend to break the law. It just doesn't seem that clear to me.